Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1001 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 1 August, 2014

Sh Vikram Dev Malhotra vs Rajesh Lamba on 21 May, 2015

6. The main contention of Ld counsel for the revisionist in the present case is that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra and another, (mentioned above), Ld Trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case and accordingly the case u/s 138 N I Act should have been returned to the complainant to be filed before the court of competent jurisdiction at Goa, but Ld Trial Court refused to transfer the case on the ground that judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra and another (mentioned above) does not apply to the present case as the proceedings have reached to the stage of the application u/s 145 (2) N I Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reserved On: 20.03.2026 vs Of on 23 April, 2026

(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 472] affirmed the legal position obtaining after the amendment of the 1881 Act and endorsed that Section 142(2)(a) of the 1881 Act vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for an offence under Section 138 in the court where the cheque is delivered for collection i.e. through an account in the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account. This Court also affirmed that Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod [Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 676 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 673] would not non-suit the company insofar as territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the 1881 Act was concerned.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karthi P Chidambaram vs Superintendent Of Police on 22 August, 2017

15. The judgment in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v.State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129 has categorically held that "the civil law concept of 'part of cause of action' cannot be borrowed for the purpose of ascertaining jurisdiction in criminal matters". The fact that the said case arose from an offence under the Negotiable Instrument Act is a mere co-incidence and irrespective of the penal act involved, the ratio of Dashrath Rupsingh case (supra) would not change. The Attempts made on the part of the petitioner to distinguish the said judgment on the said ground is unsustainable in law.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 4 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Renaissance Furniture Pvt. Ltd vs Gemini Realtech Pvt. Ltd on 10 September, 2015

206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 & 210/14 Page No. 12 of 14 Maharashtra And Another' (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129, as observed vide paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof, the territorial jurisdiction in such cases would have to be restricted to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was allegedly committed, which in the present context is where the cheques were dishonoured by the banks on which they were drawn and thus in terms of directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra And Another', it is apparent that the complaint would have to be returned to the complainant for filing it in the proper Court as observed vide paragraph 22 of the said verdict. In view thereof, the impugned orders dated 04.09.2014 of the Ld. Trial Court in CC Nos. 02/14, 03/14, 04/14, 68/14 and 69/14 are thus set aside and the Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 206/14, 207/14, 208/14, 209/14 and 210/14 are, thus, allowed.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mubashir Manzoor Bhat vs Rouf Jeelani Parray on 17 May, 2018

Obviously, therefore, the accused had not yet been served with summons as on 01.08.2014. He had ultimately caused his appearance on 30.09.2014. His statement under section 242 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 21.10.2014. So, this was a case where as on 01.08.2014, i.e., the date of judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v State of Maharashtra (supra), the case had not yet reached the stage of the recording of evidence and, therefore, in ________________________________________ Cr. MC 141/2016 Page 6 of 10 terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Budgam, did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and/or take cognizance therein. Consequently, in terms of the judgment, the complaint was required to be returned to the complainant for being filed/re-filed before the court of competent jurisdiction at Srinagar within whose territorial jurisdiction the cheques had been dishonoured. Obviously, once the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Budgam, lacked territorial jurisdiction, any proceedings taken or statement(s) recorded by that court were rendered without jurisdiction and illegal and, therefore, inconsequential.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Magrey - Full Document

Vinay Kumar Shailendra vs Delhi High Court Legal Ser.Commit. on 4 September, 2014

4. The view taken by the Magistrate based as it is on the decision of this Court in Harman’s case (supra) does not, in our 18 opinion, call for any interference by this Court, in the light of the pronouncement of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2014) 9 SCALE 97 where this Court has examined the issue at some length and held that presentation of a cheque by the complainant at a place of his choice or issue of notice by him to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount are not sufficient by themselves to confer jurisdiction upon the courts where such cheque was presented or notice issued. Following the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case (supra), we affirm the order passed by the High Court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Vinay Kumar Shailendra vs Delhi High Court Legal Ser.Commit.& Anr on 4 September, 2014

4. The view taken by the Magistrate based as it is on the decision of this Court in Harman’s case (supra) does not, in our opinion, call for any interference by this Court, in the light of the pronouncement of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2014) 9 SCALE 97 where this Court has examined the issue at some length and held that presentation of a cheque by the complainant at a place of his choice or issue of notice by him to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount are not sufficient by themselves to confer jurisdiction upon the courts where such cheque was presented or notice issued. Following the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case (supra), we affirm the order passed by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 18 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next